United Doubts: Grammar Teaching in Pakistan

Teachers & Learners’ Perspective

Muhammad Asim Mahmood,

Assistant professor, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan,

Farhat Jabeen,

lecturer, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

--

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the nature of Pakistani teachers and learners’ responses towards

grammar teaching. Our population sample consists of 25 male and 25 female teachers from

public sector institutions in Faisalabad city and 25 male and 25 female learners of 10th

grade

from those public sector institutions. We have designed a questionnaire to explore their

responses. The questionnaire seeks to draw out the respondents’ opinions about whether

grammar should be a part of English language instruction or not. It also aims to find out teachers

and learners’ responses regarding structural and functional grammar, competence and

performance based grammar instruction, the teaching of simple and complex structures,

contextualized grammar instruction, explicit and implicit grammar teaching, integrated vs.

separate lessons, the use of teacher feedback and the appropriate age to start grammar

instruction. The results were analysed with the help of SPSS 19.0. We analysed the frequency of

learners and teachers’ responses and further cross - tabulated those responses with the gender

variable. During the analysis of results, we realized that our respondents have no idea about

various aspects of grammar instruction. Therefore, instead of interpreting their responses as

reliable indicators of their opinion, this study helps highlight the ignorance of Pakistani English

language teachers with the central concepts involved in language teaching and their inability to

keep abreast of the latest trends in the world of ELT at international level. This paper also

stresses that teacher training is an effective solution to address this problem.

While going through an article titled “Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An

SLA Perspective” by Rod Ellis (2006), I was struck by the relevance and enormity of the issues

raised by him. He has discussed various issues related to grammar teaching and offered some

insights as answers to those issues. These concerns are of paramount importance for language

teaching community all over the world.

We already know that grammar has long been the centre of language teaching and

learning activity. As far back as fifteenth century, the problem of teaching grammar effectively

has been at the heart of most language teaching debate. For centuries language teaching has been

synonymous with grammar teaching until the rise of communicative language teaching (CLT)

dealt a severe blow to this approach (Thompson, 1996). The communicative approach provided

language teachers with a reason to abandon grammar teaching completely. It was a blessing for

the non- native teachers who felt burdened with the load of grammar teaching and for the native

teachers who now had a reason for not knowing the grammar of their own language (Swan,

2006). Under the influence of Corder (1967) and Krashen (1981), the role of grammar instruction

in language teaching was minimized (as cited in Ellis, 2006). The language teachers believed that

grammar should not be a part of language instruction. At best, it could be tolerated as a part of

home study material (Lightbown as cited in Byrd, 2005). However, with the recent attention

being paid to focus on form movement of grammar teaching (Fotos, 1998), grammar has again

become the core of a hot debate. There is no disagreement among linguists now as to the

importance of grammar teaching in the language classroom (Burgess & Etherington, 2002).

Nevertheless, the method of introducing and teaching grammar in the language classroom is a

disputable topic.

Under the influence of discussion on cognitive psychology, it was assumed that the

learners acquire the grammar of the target language if they are constantly exposed to the

language itself (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). But the growing body of current research shows that

grammar is necessary for communication to take place (Thompson, 1996). Without some

knowledge of grammar, the learners will not be able to make sense of the linguistic input

presented to them. Fotos (1998) suggests a qualified return to grammar teaching as a solution.

According to her, this does not mean a return to the “old ways” of grammar teaching with

extensive drills, rule memorization and explicit grammar teaching. Instead, she suggests a focus

on form based approach, incorporated in lesson before and after the communicative activities.

Accordingly, she offers an amalgamation of CLT and grammar teaching. Thompson (1996) also

advocates this shift in focus from “teacher covering grammar to learner discovering grammar (p.

11).

If grammar teaching has to be a part of language lesson, a very pertinent question is

whether it should be explicit and presented as a separate lesson or incorporated in the lesson.

There is a baffling number of options and techniques ranging from complete exclusion to

implicit inclusion of grammar (Burgess & Etherington, 2002). The attitudinal study conducted by

Burgess and Etherington (2002) shows that even at advanced level; learners expect explicit

grammar instruction from the teacher. Burgess and Etherington also conclude that teachers

themselves prefer explicit grammar instruction. This preference on teachers’ part may be

motivated by a belief that explicit grammar teaching decreases teachers’ burden, as they do not

have to come up with interesting ways to introduce grammar explicitly in the language class. On

the other hand, Swan (2006) opines that the answer to explicit/implicit dilemma should be based

on the consideration of context. He claims that the level and needs of the learners needs to be

taken into account while deciding how grammar is to be taught. It also depends on the nature of

topic. Therefore, teachers have to consider all these variables before deciding upon explicit or

implicit grammar teaching.

Yet there are others who support a combination of explicit grammar teaching and

communicative approach. Nunan (1998) favors this blend and advocates for an organic

perspective of grammar teaching. He argues that using CLT or explicit grammar teaching

exclusively does not lead to effective language learning. Therefore, he promotes a systematic,

easy to difficult approach to grammar teaching. This hierarchal approach to grammar teaching

may be traced back to Pienemann’s Teachability hypothesis (Pienemann, 1989). According to

this hypothesis, learners acquire the grammar of the target language only when they are ready to

learn it. One cannot teach everything to the learners en masse. So a consideration of learners’

interlanguage is important while determining what aspects of grammar should be taught to the

learners and how they are to be taught.

Another important distinction here is between second and foreign language context. Swan

(2006) strongly recommends grammar teaching in foreign language context. Fotos (1998) draws

on the same distinction. She suggests that grammar teaching methods used in second language

situation may not be used in the foreign language context. Instead, an adapted version of

grammar teaching should be used for foreign language teaching. This adaptation may include

explicit grammar teaching. She claims that explicit grammar teaching “may increase learner

awareness of the target structure and improve accuracy in its use” (p. 307). Muncie (2002)

advocates explicit grammar teaching in foreign language environment. Yet this explicit teaching

will be based on limited components of grammar and generalized in nature.

This leads us to consider the importance of context in grammar instruction. The issue of

contextualizing language structures has been discussed extensively in the previous decades. Long

(1987) has stressed the importance of using target language structures in their natural,

communicative contexts. Nunan (1998) points to the problems caused by those grammar

textbooks that present decontextualized language structures. He suggests that language structures

should be presented in communicative context so that the learners may explore the

“communicative appropriacy” of those structures.

Gokhale (2010) discusses the same problem in the background of English language

teaching in India. She considers it a major drawback in Indian teaching system, which results in

dull, boring classes and unmotivated learners. She also stresses the need for English language

teachers in India to increase the communicative competence of their students by contextualizing

the language input presented to them.

Swan (2006) presents some examples of decontextualized language structures, which

appear to be comical. Referring to these examples, he emphasizes the need for using authentic

material for grammar teaching. He compares corpus authenticity with classroom authenticity and

calls for using “realistic” examples to teach grammar. Nunan (1998) also states that he executes

his organic approach to grammar teaching by using authentic data in the language classroom. He

clarifies that the use of unauthentic data complicates the grammar learning process instead of

making it easy.

Having established that grammar is an essential part of language teaching, Ellis (2006)

asks another relevant question. He addresses the issue of what grammar is to be taught in the

language classroom. He agrees with the modern trend of grammar teaching which lays more

stress on functional rather than structural aspect of grammar. Gokhale (2010) also supports a

functional approach to grammar teaching. She considers this approach a key which can

revolutionize the language teaching methods in India.

Swan (2006) makes an in-depth analysis of the issue at hand and gives detailed criteria

for determining what type of grammar should be taught. He mentions comprehensibility,

acceptability, scope of a rule, frequency of an item and its relevance as guiding principles for

deciding which items and structures should be taught. We can see that these criteria are learner

centered; thus, learners’ needs are considered as the guiding force for determining what should

be taught in grammar.

The next logical question raised by Ellis (2006) is how much grammar should be taught

to the language learners. He finds that there is no definite answer to this question and more

research needs to be done in order to formulate conclusive opinions.

However, this is not the only area that needs extensive research. All the above- mentioned

issues and opinions may stand true in some contexts and be falsified in others. Moreover, all

these opinions related to grammar teaching issues have been seen through the eyes of linguists or

language teachers/theorists. Mostly, the researchers have ignored the view- point of learners in

this debate. While Burgess and Etherington (2002) have hinted at the disparity that may exist in

teachers and learners’ point of view about grammar teaching, their study does not incorporate the

learners’ perspective. So this present study aims to find out the nature of this disparity in English

language teachers and learners’ opinions and to confirm if it exists at all. Moreover, this paper

aims to find out the opinions of Pakistani English language teachers and learners about the

following questions:

1. Should grammar be taught in the English language classroom or not?

2. If yes, should it be taught explicitly or implicitly?

3. What grammar should be taught in the language classroom?

4. Which grammatical structures should be taught in the language classroom?

5. Should grammar teaching be contextualized or not?

6. Should grammar teaching be competence or performance based?

7. Should grammar lessons be integrated or taught separately?

8. Does corrective feedback by the teacher play any role in grammar teaching/learning?

9. What is the appropriate age for grammar instruction?

These questions are based on the issues raised by Ellis (2006).

Methodology

The focus of our research is to find out the attitude of Pakistani English language teachers and

learners towards grammar teaching in the language classroom. Moreover, we have aimed to find

out answers to the other issues related to grammar teaching. For that purpose, a non- experiment,

qualitative research has been conducted as it helps to “uncover information from information-

rich samples” (Perry, 2005, p. 75). It is a survey research and exploratory in nature. As the most

important tool for survey research is written questionnaire, (McKay, 2006) we have used it as a

tool for data collection.

Sampling

We have used representative sampling paradigm to determine our population as it is considered

the most effective paradigm for generalizing the results of the findings (Perry, 2008) to the target

population. The population we have selected is experimentally accessible and it comprises of 50

public sector teachers and 50 students from public sector institutions. The students of 10th

grade

have been selected for this study. The population is further categorized on the basis of gender. 25

male and 25 female teachers make up our population sample. Similarly, an equal number of male

and female learners have been selected from ten public sector high schools in Faisalabad city.

Our sampling strategy is simple random (Perry, 2008) as the institutions have been chosen

randomly. The respondents have also been selected through simple random sampling.

Instruments

We have designed a questionnaire to probe the attitude of our respondents to grammar teaching.

Zikmund (2000) claims that questionnaire based on Likert scale is the most frequently used tool

for attitudinal study. So we have used the questionnaire based on the Likert scale offering anchor

statements like strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, disagree and uncertain.

The questionnaire has been divided into two parts. The first part is used to elicit personal

information from the respondents. In addition, the second part is used to draw the participants’

responses regarding our research questions. This part offers neutral statements about various

aspects of grammar teaching and seeks to draw out participants’ responses regarding those

issues. These statements are related to the dilemma of grammar teaching, structural vs. functional

grammar, competence and performance based grammar instruction, teaching of simple and

complex structures, incorporation of target and local culture in grammar teaching, explicit or

implicit instruction, integrated and separate grammar lessons, the use of corrective feedback and

the appropriate age to start grammar instruction.

We have added only one reverse question to check the validity of the preceding reply. As

we asked the respondents if they thought grammar must be taught in the English language

classroom we also asked the reverse question i.e. if they think grammar must not be taught in the

English language classroom. The rest of the statements in the questionnaire reflect a particular

view- point about grammar teaching. These view points are in no way exclusive and

disagreement with one aspect of grammar teaching does not entail agreement with its opposite.

For example, if the respondents agree that functional grammar should be taught in the English

language classroom, it does not mean that structural grammar teaching should be abandoned.

This questionnaire simply aims to seek teachers and learners’ responses about various aspects of

grammar teaching without passing or drawing any value judgments.

Data Collection

As mentioned earlier, the schools and the respondents were selected randomly for data

collection. During the collection of data, I faced certain problems as well. Many administrators

refused to allow me to collect data claiming that they did not want to be bothered or that all the

teachers were engaged in classes at that time and could not be disturbed. But the most important

problem was to make our respondents, teachers as well as learners, understand the concepts of

grammar teaching. Most of the concepts introduced through the questionnaire were newspeak to

them. The teachers had no idea about explicit or implicit grammar teaching, or competence vs.

performance based instruction. They had no clue about contextual grammar teaching and no

clear opinion as to what culture, target or local, should be incorporated in grammar teaching.

The learners also presented an array of interesting responses when presented with the

questionnaire. Some of them were baffled that their opinions should ever be asked about

anything related to teaching. We should keep in mind that the educational set up in Pakistan,

especially in public sector institutions, is largely teacher centered where learners have no say in

the classroom. Yet some of the learners felt thrilled and excited thinking that their teachers were

going to modify their teaching on the basis of the results of this study. Amid all this excitement

and wonder, I had to intervene to make them understand the concepts that the questionnaire was

asking their opinions about. All those aspects of grammar teaching and their implications were

alien to the learners as they were introduced to them for the first time. This should not be

surprising for us as the learners of 10th

grade are not supposed to know about the technical

aspects of grammar teaching. But what is worth noticing is that learners were surprised to find

that such possibilities and ways of grammar teaching ever existed. In this regard, the teachers too

were no exception. Although many of them held professional degrees such as Bachelors in

Education, they were unfamiliar with the commonplace notions and terminologies that make up

teaching register. When the concept of deductive grammar teaching was explained to a teacher,

she felt delighted that such a possibility existed. Many times, I had to intervene and make the

respondents understand with the help of examples other than those already given in the

questionnaire. Most of the teachers responded that they wanted it all, explicit as well as implicit,

integrated and separate lessons too, target culture incorporated with the local culture and

grammar teaching steeped in both of them.

The respondents also ignored the implications of the responses they chose to make. For example,

when asked about the appropriate age to start grammar instruction, they responded that learners

should be old enough to understand what they were learning and chose 15 years as the

appropriate age for grammar instruction. Interestingly, most of the learners who responded to

this questionnaire belonged to the age group of 14 to 15. When I further asked if they thought

they should not have been exposed to grammar in their early years of education, they claimed

that was not what they meant and modified their responses to five or ten years as the appropriate

age to start grammar teaching.

Design and Statistical Procedure

The results of the questionnaire have been analysed using SPSS 19.0. The frequency of teachers

and learners’ responses with reference to different questions has been measured. On the basis of

this frequency check, we have explored the nature of Pakistani teachers and learners’ attitude

towards grammar teaching. The gender based differences have also been measured by cross

tabulation which is believed to be a valid method for studying correlation between two factors

(Ary; Jacobs; Razavieh & Sorenson, 2009)

Results

The results of our study depict some baffling patterns. As far as the issue of grammar teaching is

concerned, there is no debate at all. 100 % students and 91.8 percent teachers agree that grammar

is an essential component of target language teaching. The results of the reverse question also

endorse this point as 87.8 % learners and 80 % teachers disagree with the idea that grammar

teaching should be abandoned. And when it comes to what type of grammar should be taught in

the English language classroom, 96 % learners rejected structural model of grammar teaching

and 60 % of them agree that functional grammar should be taught in the language classroom.

Teachers endorse the same opinion and 69.4 % of them support the teaching of functional

grammar as opposed to 46.9 who favor structural grammar teaching. Moreover, there are no

prominent gender based differences in these opinions. Yet it is observed that female students (68

%) are more inclined to favor functional grammar teaching as compared to male learners (52 %).

As for the competence and performance based teaching, 70 % learners and 89.4 %

teachers agree that grammar teaching should be performance oriented. Conversely, a large

number of teachers i.e. 72 % also favor competence based instruction.

90 % of the learners opine that grammar teaching should include complex as well as

simple structures. In this regard, teachers appear to be confused about their stance as we see that

60 % of them support the teaching of simple structures and 53.1 % agree that complex structures

should also be taught. Moreover, gender based differences are manifested by the teachers as 64

% females support the teaching of complex structures while 52 % male teachers disagree with

this point of view.

The contextualization of grammar teaching is another issue that attracts varying opinions.

54 % learners support the inclusion of both target and local culture in grammar teaching while an

overwhelming majority of teachers i.e. 94 % believes that grammar should be taught in the

context of target culture. But 55.1 % of them also support the incorporation of local culture in

grammar instruction. Yet again 93.9 % of them agree that grammar should be taught in the

general context free from target and local culture.

The analysis also shows that both teachers and the learners favor explicit grammar

teaching. 54 % learners prefer it to implicit grammar instruction. Gender based differences

surface again among the learners as the majority of female learners (88 %) oppose the implicit

grammar instruction. 88.1 % teachers also prefer explicit over implicit grammar instruction. But

68 % of them also agree that grammar should be taught implicitly.

Furthermore, 90 % learners and 71.1 % teachers maintain that grammar should be taught

in separate lessons instead of integrating them into regular lessons. Yet again, 81.6 % of the

teachers agree that grammar teaching should be integrated.

The attitude towards corrective feedback by the teachers presents some very interesting

results. 90 % learners and 92 % teachers agree that teachers should provide immediate corrective

feedback to the learners. And there are no gender based differences in this regard.

As for the appropriate age to start grammar instruction, 100 % students agree that

learners should be exposed to target language grammar in the first ten years of their lives.

Whereas 54 % teachers believe that grammar instruction should start by the age of 10.

In the last two responses, it appears that teachers and learners are sure about their

responses as there are no opposing opinions about these issues.

Discussion

The above mentioned statistics show that there is no disagreement among teachers and learners

about the importance of grammar teaching. When I sought the opinions of teachers and learners

in informal interviews, they all claimed that no language could be taught and learnt without

focusing its grammar. This is in line with the international trend of focus on form movement in

language teaching. But the opinions of Pakistani teachers and learners may not be viewed as a

reflection of latest international trends. In Pakistan, language teaching has traditionally been

identified with teaching the grammar of that language. While the international language teaching

diverted from and later returned to grammar teaching, the Pakistani language teaching

approaches have always been concerned with and based upon the traditional concept of grammar

teaching.

Ellis (2006), Gokhale (2010) and Swan (2006) also share the Pakistani teachers and

learners’ preference for functional grammar as opposed to structural grammar. However, most of

them have no idea about the functional grammar teaching as the English language curriculum in

Pakistani public sector institutes is based only on the structural aspects of the grammar. So when

they were exposed to the idea of functional grammar teaching as an alternative to structural

grammar teaching, they accept the idea without being aware of its true implications.

The next issue is competence vs. performance based grammar instruction. As mentioned

in the previous section, an overwhelming majority of teachers and learners believe that grammar

instruction should aim to enhance the linguistic performance of the learners. This may reflect the

Pakistani educationists’ recent obsession with the primacy of speech and accuracy of oral output

by the language learner. But a large number of teachers have also supported competence oriented

teaching. So we are forced to conclude that either the teachers have no idea about competence or

performance based grammar instruction as we suspected during our data collection.

Alternatively, they may believe in the incorporation of both competence and performance based

strategies.

Some interesting results are seen with reference to the issue of teaching simple and

complex structures. A majority of learners favored the teaching of complex grammatical

structures. When asked by the research, in informal discussion, whether they should be taught

complex structures or the grammar instruction should be limited to simple structures like parts of

speech, they unanimously claimed, “We should know it all”. As obviously, it is not possible for

them to know it all; their ready and willing response to learning complex structures came as a

surprise. Of course, the respondents did not consider the level and age of the learners when the

instruction of complex structures should start. Here again the teachers are divided in their

preference for simple and complex structures. So a further issue may be to find out their opinions

about the level of the learners’ competence and the nature of complex structures that can be

instructed at those various levels.

One very important but controversial issue is the inclusion of target or local culture in

grammar teaching. As mentioned earlier, learners’ opinions are divided about this issue. In the

oral interviews, they again claimed that grammar teaching should be embedded in target as well

as the local culture. But the teachers have a different opinion as 94 % of them favor target culture

settings for grammar instruction. Some of the teachers refused to accept that the incorporation of

local culture might also be an option in grammar teaching. They claimed that Pakistanis use

British variety of English so the learners should also be taught the grammar of the target

language in the same context. This idea gains enormous importance when seen in the perspective

of colonization phenomenon. British English, being the language of the colonizers in the sub-

continent, still carries a lot of prestige and is generally accepted by the masses as the only

acceptable variety. However, it is important to note that no educational policy or curricula

developed by the ministry of education has explicitly supported or documented this preference

for the British variety of English. Moreover, when asked by the researcher if they could describe

the salient features of British variety of English, they failed to come up with any explanations.

There is another dichotomy as 93.9 % teachers favor the decontextualized teaching of grammar

where the structures of grammar in general should be taught to the learners without associating

those structures with any particular culture. So again we are in a dilemma whether to accept their

opinions as they are or to believe that they have no idea about contextual grammar teaching. It is

important to mention here that an average public sector teacher in Pakistan has no role in policy

making in syllabus designing. That is why most of them are not trained to analyze critically

whatever they are teaching in their classrooms. In the absence of training for curriculum

development and syllabus designing, they are unable to analyze if they are teaching grammar in

context and if yes, what context it is.

As for the explicit vs. implicit grammar instruction, teachers and learners prefer the

explicit teaching practices. This finding echoes the results of the study conducted by Burgess and

Etherington (2002). Their study also shows that teachers and learners prefer explicit grammar

instruction as they feel it is more satisfying. The teachers are divided on this front too as more

than half the respondents favor implicit grammar too. So we may advocate for a combination of

explicit and implicit teaching techniques decide on the basis of the nature of structures and the

level of the learners.

During an informal conversation between the researcher and some respondents, one of

the participants exclaimed that they should be taught in the “normal” way. The normal way here

meant the usual practice of separate sessions for grammar when the teacher focuses on the

teaching of grammatical structures and no attention whatsoever is paid to the practical use of

those structures. This leads us to the issue of integrated and separate lessons for grammar. The

learners favor explicit grammar instruction in separate lessons where a large portion of teaching

time is dedicated to the teaching of grammatical structures and drills and translation exercises.

But the teachers prefer integrated grammar lessons where grammar instruction is incorporated

with the communicative activities.

When the learners were asked if their errors should be corrected by the teacher or not,

they gravely responded “How shall we learn if the teachers don’t correct us. We ’ll keep making

the same mistakes!”. The teachers forwarded the same point of view although some of them

murmured that perhaps learners could learn by trial and error. The researcher further deduced by

her discussion with the learners that they were afraid to make mistakes and their overwhelming

concern was that mistakes or errors might result in poor grades in examination. So the teachers

must correct them or they will never be able to identify and correct their errors on their own.

The last issue to discuss here is the age when grammar teaching should start. All the

respondents claim that five to ten years is the right time for introducing grammar to the learners.

Some respondents claimed that the earlier they started the better. They believed that it would

strengthen their knowledge of grammar if they were taught grammar at the early age. Again they

did not consider and mention the level of complexity of grammatical structures that should be

taught at this early stage.

Conclusion

When we set out to conduct this study, our aim was to find out the teachers and learners’

responses to different aspects of grammar teaching. But we reached a destination very different

from the one that we had envisioned in the beginning. Far from obtaining some informed

opinions about grammar teaching, we found out that our respondents had no idea that those

facets of grammar teaching even existed. Leaving aside the learners who may have no idea about

the technicalities of teaching, the teachers themselves had no clue as to what was being asked of

them. So we arrived at the conclusion that instead of asking what was their opinion about certain

concepts we should better have asked if they had any idea about those concepts and their

implications.

This study may be eye opening for our teacher trainers and planners who are responsible to

ensure the availability of qualified teachers. We wonder about the proficiency level of the

teachers, as most of them were unable to make sense of simple sentences of English. It is

important to mention that the Flesch Reading scale of our questionnaire is 62.6 and the according

to the Flesch –Kincaid grade level, it is rated at 7.8 points. So ideally the English language

teachers should be able to understand the questionnaire which an American eighth grade student

can understand. Granted that English is not the native language of those teachers, yet they are

language teachers with years of field experience! It appears that our teachers are in dire need of

training programs and courses that may help them keep abreast of the international trends in the

world of ELT.

We started our study with the aim of finding answers to some issues raised by grammarians and

discussed in the books of ELT. In this journey we took the way that our results led us to. During

the analysis we found out that our respondents are not concerned with these problems. Their

dilemma is not to choose between structural and functional grammar, or explicit and implicit

grammar teaching etc. Their problem is that they are simply not aware of the existence of these

notions. They are blissfully ignorant of the alternative ways of teaching grammar than those they

have been using for years. No education policy and no revised curriculum in Pakistan has ever

pin pointed this situation. This is a problem not addressed in any ELT planning. Over the years,

Pakistani educationists have been clamoring over the reasons that led to the failure of our

education policies. But they never once realized that no matter how practical, advanced and

realistic our policies are, they will fall short of achieving their aim if the English language

teachers fail to implement them in class and incorporate them in their teaching practices.

Since our problem is extraordinary and belongs to the world not found in books, we need to find

unusual solutions. We need to train our teachers and make them realize that whatever they study,

that is if they do, in teacher trainee courses may also have practical use in the classroom.

Here it is important to mention that during my data collection, I met many English language

teachers who were not qualified to teach English. Most of them were teaching English because

they were senior teachers or just because they have been teaching English for past many years.

Although many subject specialists have been hired in public sector institutions, there is still a

large number of teachers out there who are not qualified and trained to teaching English

language.

In order to address these problems, I suggest that training program should be a prerequisite for

appointing teachers at every level. Many Pakistani English language teachers enter the world of

teaching without any professional training. Once they are in service many of them resort to these

training programs merely because it can earn them promotion and higher salaries. We need to

change this mindset and make our English language teachers realize that ELT is dynamic in

nature and they must keep abreast of the latest trends in ELT if they want to succeed in their

fields.

References Ary, D.; Jacobs, L.C.; Razavieh, A. & Sorenson, C. (2009). Introduction to research in education. Cengage Learning.

Burgess, John & Etherington, Sian. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit. System , 433-458.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly , 40 (1).

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal , 52 (4).

Gokhale, M. (2010). A pragmatic approach to the teaching of grammar in Indian context. ELT Weekly , 2 (75).

Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task based language teaching.

McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching Second language classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal , 56 (2).

Nassaji, Hossein & Fotos, Sandra. (2004). Current development in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 126-145.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal , 52 (2).

Perry, F. L. (2005). Research in applied linguistics, becoming a discerning consumer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Perry, F. L. (2008). Research in applied linguistics, becoming a discerning consumer. Taylor and Francis.

Pienmann, M. (1989). Is language teachable: psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics , 10 (1), 52-79.

Swan, M. (2006). Teaching grammar: does grammar teaching work? Modern English Teacher , 15 (2).

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal , 50 (1).

Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Exploring Marketing Research (7th ed.). The Dryden Press, Harcourt College Publishers.